Chair: Jon Gunderson
Date: Wednesday, April 21st
Time: 12:00 noon to 1:30 pm Eastern Standard Time
Call-in: W3C Tobin Bridge (+1) 617-252-7000
RR: Rewrite 7.2.2 as you want it (centered around information).
IJ: Write Danny Weitzner to find out of ecommerce folks (fee links) have requirements on UAs.
IJ: Write Danny Weitzner an email about this. ii) Resolved: Make 6.1.11 a priority 2. Agenda Item 3) Navigation/Search Functionality review. Refer to list of checkpoints in the agenda [1] that involve navigation and searching.
Editors: Add Cross link in 5.2.4 (and 5.2.6) to 7.3.3.
JG: Revise proposal on sectin 7.2 and send it to the group for continued discussion
Chair: Jon Gunderson (JG)
Scribe: Jim Allan (JA)
Harvey Bingham (HB)
Dennis Anson (DA)
Kitch Barnicle (KB, Doctor now)
Charles McCathieNevile (CMN)
Marja Koivunen (MK)
Mark Novak (MN)
Ian Jacobs
Rich Schwerdtfeger
JG: Revise proposal on sectin 7.2 and send it to the group for continued discussion http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999AprJun/0041.html
RR: Rewrite 7.2.2 as you want it (centered around information).
IJ: Write Danny Weitzner to find out of ecommerce folks (fee links) have requirements on UAs.
IJ: Write Danny Weitzner an email about this. ii) Resolved: Make 6.1.11 a priority 2. Agenda Item 3) Navigation/Search Functionality review. Refer to list of checkpoints in the agenda [1] that involve navigation and searching.
Editors: Add Cross link in 5.2.4 (and 5.2.6) to 7.3.3.
MN: Will post message about ua implementation of ua
CMN: 7.2.2, 7.2.6 write techniques, fix accessibility options of html what version
JG: Techniques for 7.2.2 comment on MN previous work on this checkpoint
JG : write checkpoint 7.2.1 techiques, contact rob (ms) about 724,5,6; contact rich s (ibm) and peter korn (sun) to get techniques also for checkpoint 7.2.4,5,6 and Denis Anson about contributing on navigation commands
JA: look at nav stuff and propose checkpoints and techniques, by Monday (maybe) techniques what attributes are important to search for group to review and assign more tasks at next meeting.
Cancel May 12th meeting due to WWW 8 conference
Accept the topics in the checkpoints outlined by Jon Gundersons revised proposal (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999AprJun/0041.html)for inclusion in the next working draft and as representing the AT compatibility issues. The checkpoints may be modified based on editing and contributions to the techniques document. If two or more checkpoints share predominately the same information it may be better to combine them.
JG: new working draft by end of may move to proposed recommendation. Lots of issues People attending www8 all but jg and mn, may Resolved: cancel May 12 meeting Action items:
JG: revised 7.2 guidelines completed Discussion of AT compatibility
JG: most people can live with checkpoints with some clarifications
DA: concerns-DOM is one way to get access, checkpoint should be to get access to content on page, technique is use the dom
JG: strong feeling in group to use dom access in the checkpoint, similar to saying use accessibility features in html, xml, etc. if you use dom then you will be giving access to all content on a page.
DA: since it is a w3 spec I can live with it
CMN: good because it is a standard interface cross platform to the information
JG: number of ua have implemented dom
MN: dom implementation is confused at the moment, complete implementation is difficult, 4 or 5 ua that are saying they will implement dom
ACTION: MN will post message about ua implementation of ua
JG: cmn made strong point for two way communication between ua and AT cmn: AT being able to set the selection point or focus
JG: we hae a checkpoint for that cmn: need to have one check point to cover all instances in list jg: 7.2, 7.3, 7.5
CMN: if you have access setting then 7.2-7.5 are redundant jg: can collapse 723 and 724 but makes the techniques more complex, 723 can derive info from os but allowing external program to change paramaters is not obvious, may be difficult programmatically. Leave separate, write techniques and see if thechniques are similar then combine them. If techniques are different then leave as separate checkpoints ? clarify 725
JG: mouse over how does AT identify and implement the mouse over event without the mouse. Some os may not have same level of AT support/api, if browser doesn't use standard controls then AT cant get at the information (netscape example) then 725 prevents this to allow AT access to nonstandard controls. Want this section to encompass all the concepts. Kb: any ua that get check for 723 -725
JG: IE would get check, AT can manipulate dom through activeX , ms is closest to all, integrate accessibility api,
MN: level of dom support in IE is further along than what w3 recommends, lots of stuff is available to AT without need for activeaccessibility or other apis,
JG: AT vendors have different needs, some want AA, others with dom, etc. same is occuring with sun swing. We want to say do both. Dom is document centered for use by scripting languages for manipulation of contents, style, etc. AA and swing java accibility api geared to querying ua for controls, what is rendered, what info is on the screen, java has extensions to object classes-more an operating system orientation rather than document orientation.
MN: venders have different needs. Webspeak has own controls etc, needs access to document. Jaws needs access to both.
JG: Checkpoint 7.2.1(use os tools and api),
7.2.2 (use dom for access to content) use both methods for access
CMN: need to say what should be exposed in a checkpoint
ACTION: cmn: 7.2.2, 7.2.6 write techniques, fix accessibility options of html what version
JG: 7.27 timely manner
MN: problem with timely manner definition change to p2, cant be p1 until :timely is defined mn: some techniques for 72x are in document that Rich and I are editing, also techniques on os
ACTION: JG: Techniques for 7.2.2 comment on mn previous work on this
HB: book is done, 19 items deferred, working on table thing
JG: anyone to write technique for 721, what type of information needs to be provided to AT and what is available on different os
MN: trouble with techniques being similar jg: need to word smith, clean up overlap, we need all ideas first then clean up,
ACTION: JG : write checkpoint 7.2.1 techiques, contact rob (ms) about 724,5,6; contact rich s (ibm) and peter korn (sun) to get techniques also for checkpoint 7.2.4,5,6
MN: sounds similar work I have done with rich already jg: techniques - what can be done, what should be done, in implementation of checkpoint, may be different ways to implement. Very technical section, need programmer input (mn, rich cmn: feels comfortable looking at this material, but not volunteering resoloved accept 72x checkpoints with additional comments and techniques jg: ian will integrate after May 15 mg: dependent definition?
JG: dependent ua=Assistive Technology
HB: html 4 accessibility has transitional stuff, should we tighten up the checkpoints
JG: need to add from pagl, defer until nav and AT issues done, have a strong statement about html 4, talk about 7.1 support accessibility features of html but doesn't specify version, techniques point to web content guidelines, need to go through pagl to make sure uagl reference appropriately, make priorty match,
JG: w3 note not normative, techniques are a note not a recommendation, one advantage of putting dom recommendation to 7.1 so as new features are added to dom easy to change document dom is language neutral, platform independent jg" implement dom1 in 72x, dom spec does not address exporting, separte checkpoint to export dom, move implementation to 7.1, discuss dom in techiques extensively. Issue: should reccomendaiton of dom interface be moved to guideline 7.1
DA: then we must rewrite 7.1 to not say language
JG: maybe leave dom where it is. Leave as open issue, techniques should help resolve. review navigation:
JG: keyboard stuff, previous discussion of navigation/keyboard 3 classes of nav commands (18 ideas for nav features) 1) sequential commands between active item (ie: tab) 2) search function *** a) text in link or heading b) attribute (ie text input box, class=nav) 3) dom centric mode-nav the doc tree (parent element, next child element)
JG: clean up and define da: problem with doc tree, is not obvious to user how structure work jg: problem-how does programmer know what we mean, need to describe or build algorythm to show what we want, navigate to next block level element, no defintion of block, make algorithm base on dom hb: table cell
JG: cell is block level element mg: tree structure problem for user jg: inline tag becomes a node in doc tree, if you move to next sibling might split word because of formatting with in word, issues with dom oriented checkpoints in guidelines, need algorithms in techniques to illustrate
KB: need to be careful how guidelines are implemented da: users navigate sematically, headers, paragraphs, etc., give categories and define, for programmer assistance on what to do with the tree and how to provide information.
HB: does break tree, cell up is different part of tree not same branch
DA: jumping around is different than moving semantically, techniques should give examples of sematic units to naviage by,.
JG: need to build a list and make guidelines accordingly, need a succinct list - Basic ways to nav nav active elements-links, form control - technique bring up a list of all links nav all elements-chunks of info, define chunks/blocks everything else is search (see above ***), find next item that is similar to X (16pt arial, bold-rather than heading) whats checkpoints to represent these, then write techniques/algorithms to represent them da: talking about searching vs browsing, search is specific, browse you don't know what you are looking for.
HB: there is something Ja: browsing is different using keyboard vs mouse
MK: users don't think about structure
HB: vi users have problems with structure
DA: exits jg will send proposed action item.
JG: sequential access Search access Text content (search headers for specific content) Attribute of element (ie: Techniques to illustrate Does this provide functionality Mn: agree with broad seach categories Jg: guidelines for each specific type Mg: sequential movement, customized search Jg: need to define specifiy search criteria in checkpoints Kb: techniques - search box with checks for what elements you want to search
JG: what is best way to implement this
KB: 3 differnet search commands, one for headers, one for links,
JG: other high frequency things, likes list of links, then start typing it moves you to link beginning with letters, techniques could reflect these ideas Cmn: what is best way to say it, strong feeling about having access to all of it.
JG: cmn using dom to aid navigation, using algorithms to specify what we want. Make action items to distill some of this down Take list of nav issues, distill list of checkpoints for nav functionality
ACTION: JA look at nav stuff and propose checkpoints and techniques, by Monday (maybe) techniques what attributes are important to search for group to review and assign more tasks at next meeting.
HB: xsl has axis for navigation, attributes important in xml
JG: attributes that are important, label, name, Focus on todays technology, then address future technology, be as specific as possible to direct programmers, Discuss nav items on the list.
MG: good to have data on what users want. Or what is needed
JG: england has studies on web access in the works, microsoft has a list of grantees, the UK group looking at vi access to the web is on the list. We are weak on data about usability.